This is in response to your letter of September 17, regarding the
applicability of 29 CFR 1910.1030, "Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne
Pathogens", to employees electric cooperatives. We apologize for the delay
in this response.

The bloodborne pathogens standard addresses the broad issue of occupational
exposure to blood and other potentially infectious materials and is not meant
solely for employees in health care settings. Since there is no population
that is risk free for human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus
infectivity, any employee who has occupational exposure to blood or other
potentially infectious materials is included within the scope of this
standard.

It is important to note that the definition of "occupational exposure"
comprises the reasonable anticipation that the employee will come into
contact with these fluids during the course of performing his or her work
duties. Therefore, OSHA anticipates that this standard will impact upon all
non-health care industries in a similar fashion, i.e., that employees who are
designated as responsible for rendering first aid or medical assistance as
part of their job duties are to be covered by this standard. This is because
it is reasonable to anticipate that an employee designated to render first
aid will have occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious
materials.

Employees who perform "Good Samaritan" acts are not, per se, covered by this
standard, although OSHA would encourage an employer to offer follow-up
procedures to an employee who experiences an exposure incident as the result
of performing a "Good Samaritan" act. This is because such an action does
not constitute "occupational exposure", as defined by the standard.

The key to this issue is not whether employees have been trained in first
aid, but whether they are also designated as responsible for rendering
medical assistance. For instance, while all line workers may be trained in
first aid and CPR, not all of these employees would necessarily be designated
to render first aid. For example, a six-person crew could have two of the six
employees designated to render medical assistance and also to be covered by
the benefits of 29 CFR 1910.1030. The standard does not necessarily apply to
employees who are trained in first aid (especially when the company only
requires that employees perform forms of emergency assistance that do not
involve exposure to body fluids) but rather to those employees who are
required by the employer to actually administer first aid.

Please note that OSHA has recently issued a policy statement specifying that
failure to offer the hepatitis B vaccine pre-exposure to persons who render
first aid only as a collateral duty, will be considered a technical violation
carrying no penalties, provided that a number of conditions are met. These
conditions are described in the enclosed news release.

You should be aware that the State of North Carolina operates its own
occupational safety and health program which may impose more stringent
requirements than federal OSHA. You should therefore contact that agency for
further guidance at the following address:

Our law firm represents numerous electric cooperatives in their labor and
employment law matters. There is a great deal of concern and uncertainty
concerning the application of 29 CFR 1910.1030 to these cooperatives.

The electric cooperatives we represent are in the business of transmitting
and distributing electrical power. Each cooperative has outside employees
occupying positions ranging from equipment operator to lineman. Most
cooperatives will also have right-of- way crews that clear trees and brush
from power lines. All of the employees work under situations where they are
exposed to considerable hazards such as high voltage electric lines or
equipment like chainsaws or bushhogs.

Most employees are trained in CPR and rudimentary first aid. Minor cuts and
scrapes are frequent, but may require no more than self-administered first
aid. Unfortunately, situations may occur every few years where an employee
is seriously injured and procedures such as a pole-top rescue and CPR must be
administered while waiting for the arrival of an emergency medical team.

The question arises whether any or all of these employees can reasonably
anticipate exposure to bloodborne pathogens during the performance of their
duties. I am in receipt of a letter prepared by Patricia K. Clark, Director
of Compliance Programs, that states that OSHA will be changing instruction
CPL 2-2.44C, "Enforcement Procedures for the Occupational Exposure to
Bloodborne Pathogens Standard", to state that the standard does not apply to
construction work as defined in 29 CFR 1910.12. If such is the case, it
would seem that the standard should not apply to some work done by the
cooperative such as the construction of power lines, but might apply to other
work such as the maintenance of power lines or the clearing of power line
right-of-ways.

The term "reasonably anticipate" may be very useful under some
circumstances, but in many industries it provides little, if any, guidance.
Any information or guidance that you can provide to me concerning the
application of the bloodborne pathogens standard to outside workers for
electrical cooperatives would be much appreciated.

Thank You for Visiting Our Website

You are exiting the Department of Labor's Web server.

The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.